Saturday, May 19, 2018

Support for secession by state

The following map and subsequent table show percentages by state who, according to a 2014 Reuters-Ipsos poll, support "the idea of your state peacefully withdrawing from the USA and the federal government" ("don't know" responses are excluded; N = 12,734):

State

Secede

1) Alaska

58.3%

2) New Mexico

45.2%

3) Texas

40.4%

4) Illinois

38.9%

5) District of Columbia

38.1%

6) Alabama

38.0%

7) Utah

37.6%

8) Louisiana

37.5%

9) Montana

37.2%

10) Rhode Island

36.9%

11) Nebraska

36.2%

12) Delaware

36.1%

13) West Virginia

35.4%

14) Georgia

35.3%

15) Vermont

35.1%

16) Wyoming

34.8%

17) Oregon

33.9%

18) Virginia

33.8%

19) Kentucky

33.0%

20) South Carolina

32.7%

21) Idaho

32.5%

22) Florida

32.2%

23) Colorado

32.2%

24) New York

32.1%

25) Arkansas

32.0%

26) Oklahoma

31.6%

27) North Dakota

31.6%

28) Mississippi

31.5%

29) California

30.0%

30) Maine

29.8%

31) Kansas

29.8%

32) Nevada

29.7%

33) Tennessee

29.7%

34) Arizona

29.0%

35) New Hampshire

28.8%

36) South Dakota

28.4%

37) Maryland

27.9%

38) Washington

27.5%

39) Ohio

27.3%

40) Hawaii

27.2%

41) Michigan

26.9%

42) Pennsylvania

26.0%

43) Missouri

25.9%

44) North Carolina

25.7%

45) Iowa

24.5%

46) Indiana

24.3%

47) New Jersey

23.4%

48) Wisconsin

22.3%

49) Massachusetts

21.2%

50) Minnesota

20.6%

51) Connecticut

19.2%

Just under 13,000 people across 51 states and the Imperial Capital comes to 250 people per, some with fewer and some with more, so bear in mind the limited sample sizes.

Speaking of the Imperial Capital, the 38% figure strains credulity more than any other result does. The sample is the poll's smallest, though, at just 70, so take it with a grain of salt.

The mountain states, the Southwest, and the Deep South show the greatest support for secession. The Upper Midwest shows the least appetite for it, though Illinois--a financially dysfunctional Midwestern state held captive by ultra leftist Chicago--is a notable exception.

It's not particularly surprising that Alaska, with its petroleum dividend, libertarian streak, and minimal association with the rest of the country in terms of culture and politics, shows the greatest support for breaking away. It is the only state where a majority of respondents favor secession.

White Democrats express a lot more opposition to secession than white Republicans and independents do. But non-whites, who of course vote overwhelmingly Democrat, are more supportive than white Republicans are. There's a gaping chasm between white Democrats and their non-white political allies when it comes to political self-determination. And the non-white enthusiasm for political dissolution expressed in this poll was captured during Obama's more explicitly anti-white second term.

R-I should run the poll again today. I suspect non-white support for breakup now exceeds 50%. Sure, political dissolution will threaten the gibs, but identity is more powerful than economic well-being. That reality is something WEIRDOs have a lot of difficulty understanding. Everyone else takes it for granted and acts accordingly.

The break up of the US is inevitable ever more so as Whites continue waking up and begin taking our own side, Several smaller White majority nations in North America is preferred to a giant white minority nation. The same thing is occurring in Brazil where the White majority South is looking to secede from the rest of the country for the exact same reasons as us.

This lends support to my assertion that the Civil War was about replacing slavery of individuals by States with slavery of States by the Federal Government (violating the 10th Amendment): The former slavery supported by southern white Democrats and the latter slavery supported by northern white Democrats.

These data render more feasible a peaceful political realignment to reinstate the 10th Amendment's original intent: That all social policy belongs at the State level with States exercising border controls, including the power to exile.

Accession of northern Mexico into at least one new State is also necessary to assortatively migrate recent naturalized citizens of Mexican heritage (and to quell cartel anarchy). The same goes for the country of origin of any substantial group of immigrants. If the "leaders" of those countries can't get it together -- or if they are bent on invading the US with boots in the voting booths here -- then we just take territory from them until they disappear.

Yeah, with the mild exception of the South--which is explainable by the region's history--the more rooted east, Republican and Democrat, is less supportive than the rootless mountain and coastal West. This probably won't surprise Feryl.

Anon,

It's a reason to support secession movements everywhere. The Imperial City's legitimacy needs to be called into question again and again.

Jim,

a peaceful political realignment to reinstate the 10th Amendment's original intent: That all social policy belongs at the State level with States exercising border controls, including the power to exile.

Right. This isn't some radically new idea, it's a sensible reclination back to something sustainable and less oppressive.

So has anyone done some calculations with the population and demographics of those states to see where they could move to so they would have the best chance of success if that's the way things played out...I have which is why I'm in MT...

The sparsely populated, cold mountain states make sense. Alaska is an accentuation of all of those mountain state advantages but it has a large Amerindian to contend with (not necessarily separated from, just contended with).

Overall, it would look as if the states which are moderately to well populated, and have a generally well-behaved populace outside of certain urban centers, don't feel enough.......Angst, to be all that interested in a break-up. Not that this all applicable to every state on the bottom of this list.

Outliers:

Hawaii, Western, has a much different culture than other US states.Indiana and Missouri, the most Scots-Irish states at the bottom of the list

It would also seem as if lacking "major" urban areas is key to being on the bottom. Chicago, LA, and NYC, in our modern striver-sphere, suck the civic life-blood out of the state, and account for an extremely disproportionate number of both the super-rich and the gentry class, who create large levels of inequality and stir up resentment from the middle-middle class and working class. Minneapolis, Boston, etc., certainly play the game too to some degree, but just aren't big enough to create a sort of dystopian mindset and cynicism that is socialized into people from the states containing the biggest cities of the East Coast, Midwest, and West Coast.

A local talk show host who grew up in the Chicago-land area has for years joked about "dead people" voting in Illinois elections. And we all remember Rod Blagoyevich literally selling a Senate seat; not even using any kind of code language or innuendo, but literally telling interested parties that the seat could be bought. That's how brazen it was and probably still is. Hilary's from Chicago, too, btw.

Also, IMO the two biggest factors in supporting a break-up appear to be:

1)Having a large population of blacks, and/or

2) Western geography

Although Rhode Island (which as I understand is about as prole-ish in a bad way as the Northeast gets), Vermont (notoriously provincial and sanctimonious), and West Virginia (once again, quite prole-ish and not in a good way) are exceptions to this.

The list can also be interpreted as a guide to which states have the most well-behaved, confident, and emotionally secure whites, with most of the Midwest and Northeast doing well on those counts, and Arizona, Washington, and Tennessee being outliers in their disinclination toward breaking up(Arizona and Tennessee being a part of the wild Scots-Irish belt, and Washington being a part of the nihilistic Pac. NW)

In summary, to put people at ease you need to:

1)Have few(ish) blacks2) Have a well-behaved populace3) Don't have too many obnoxious twits who are often strivers4) Be situated well-away from the Pacific

I would expect that North Carolina would've been closer to it's Southern cousins before the 2000's, but it looks like over the last 15+ years the state has gained a lot of "good" (confident, happy, responsible) transplants. Sure, this also is true to Georgia to some degree, but Georgia has Atlanta, the biggest metro area of the South (Houston and Miami are not in the South), the capital of Black America, and a butt of many jokes by the locals. As usual, major urban areas create consternation, so Georgians are more receptive to secession than those in North Carolina.

Also, this list amuses me because Sun-Belters always complain that transplants and snow-birds are "ruining" the area or bringing the very things with them that they are trying to escape. News flash: for the concern of greater long-term civic good, you can never have enough Massholes, Joisy-ans, and Minnesota/Iowa blondes. As for "refugees" from LA, Chicago, and NYC, usually they've lost interest in playing status games and thus are probably more worth our trust and respect than the kind of people who can tolerate living in the modern striver sphere of our biggest cities.

Something that's been showing up in these state rankings for ages, usually on Isteve, is that America basically has two "triangles" of high functioning civilization: Mass./NJ/Connecticut in the Northeast, and MN/Wis./Iowa in the Upper Midwest. People in these regions are usually responsible and studious, relative to the other regions of America. Those who couldn't conform to the wholesome norms of these regions either never settled here, or were eventually driven away.

The Ellis Island stereotypes of the Northeast WRT crime and dysfunction aren't really true anymore, to the extent that they ever were true. It's the wild Scots-Irish and/or black belt that are still most statistically associated with violence and corruption. The heavily Italian population of whites in NJ and Connecticut is largely embarrassed by and regretful of Mafioso culture that Lost generation immigrants brought with them, whereas whites in the South and West regardless of their ethnicity still mostly buy into a more Dionysian culture to the horror of most whites in the Northeastern quadrant of America. That's certainly a testament to Albion's seed, in that every ethnic group except Sub-Saharan blacks eventually conforms to each region's culture (the Puritan and Midland's culture of the Northeast and Midwest, the Scots-Irish culture of the South and West).

Sub-Saharan blacks appear to do worse in the Northeast and Midwest than they do elsewhere.

Secession is one of those things where previously thought unthinkable, once someone actually follows through with it, several other states/regions will follow suit. California or Texas will likely be the first state to go through with it.

I think it will be several decades until it happens, once the population is less than 30-40 percent white and any semblance of a nation is long since gone, complete with white taxpayers getting wrung dry to keep the country together so they can cut checks for one more month's worth of gibs to their unemployable underclass. Meanwhile, the tribe moves on from the west and starts sucking the East Asians dry. Here's hoping they can learn from our mistakes.

When I'm looking at a question that is dichotomous beyond unsure/don't know, it's SOP for me to exclude the unsure/don't know (as long as the percentages giving that response aren't too large). All political polling does this--we don't read that Gallup found 28% planning on voting for Clinton to 26% planning on voting for Trump--they exclude those who say they aren't voting and then present the results as 51%-47% or whatever. Same concept here.

It also gets clunky to show three figures across 51 states or even 10 or 15 demographic categories. And before I'm accused of trying to make the pro-secession numbers look better, I could of course just show the percentages who oppose secession *without* excluding "don't know" and generate the headline "Half the country does not oppose secession!"

Random Dude,

Jews are going to have a tough time convincing East Asians that they are oppressed victims. And they're not going to be able to step in and step out of Chinese identity as it suits them like they're able to do among whites.

I recall there is a popular anecdote among Jews that when a Japanese trade delegation visited Israel, the Japanese claimed they appreciated the Protocols. The Koreans are also fans of the Talmud.

I don't think there will be a massive migration of Jews to East Asia because they have only a marginal IQ advantage. Barring a future UN requirement of the EU's four freedoms, East Asia will be content to not offer naturalization to expats.

I do think that if Israel reaches a peace deal, that Israel might be admitted as an Arab League member. The Arab reaction to the Embassy violence has been tame, the harshest response has been from the Turks and the Iranians. Assuming continued polarization increases in the West with more identitarianism, some Jews might replicate the Sephardi migration to the Ottoman Empire after Spain kicked them out. Jews would have a massive IQ advantage over the cousin marrying Muslims.

One of my best friends in college was a Japanese exchange student. I once told him that Jews believe in the Old Testament, but not the New Testament.

My Japanese friend only barely knew about the contents of the Bible. To him it was an extremely minute, fine, almost imperceptible distinction for Jews to not accept the New Testament. It's akin to Westerners hearing about a Buddhist sect not accepting certain Sutras. It may be a big deal for them, but...

216,

Israel is now generally friendly with the Sunni Arab world. They have a complex but peaceful relationship with Egypt, a burgeoning one with Saudi Arabia, and have generally supported the Sunni Arabs in Syria in varying degrees and fashions.

Turkey and Qatar are Sunni, but they both supported Islamism and the Muslim Brotherhood in the region. That was a huge no-no for Saudi and Sisi's Egypt. They thus have enough room to be somewhat friendly with Iran and hostile to Israel.

Sorry if I confused anyone, I was postulating future events in regards of Israel/Arab League. I don't know of any current efforts to have this happen, but there were discussions about it during the 1990s thaw. The Saudis have discussed ending the trade boycott.

Socialism might have another popular spell in the Arab world, though right now I can't really comment on that possibility either way.

Lebanon's relationship with Israel is such that Lebanese can disagree on what their problems are, but can agree that, whatever they are, Iarael is behind him.

AE,

The differences between Christians and Jews we in the West see as massive and fundamental seem like hairsplitting to most Japanese people.

I ultimately agree that Jews in Asia won't garner much pity. Ultimately, they look like other white people, and whatever differences they have with other whites come across as trivial. (Who knows, maybe that's how Jared Taylor developed his answer to the JQ.) Furthermore, their central claim to victimhood doesn't phase Asians all that much. Had a tough time in WWII? Welcome to the club.

It's not that Asians have harsh antisemitic attitudes, they just don't really see Jews as being all that different from other whites. I think they respect Jews for being very smart and having a lot of Nobel Prizes, but that's about it.

Californian secession is almost inevitable at this point. There are incredibly valuable military installations and ports that guarantee the breakup will not be be peaceful. At this point, the best thing to do would be to remove our infrastructure, carve out port access and give southern California to Mexico.

This has the secondary benefit of making it clear to the rest of the country that we have, in fact, experienced a literal invasion.

The rUSA could negotiate a Sevastopol-style lease of the San Diego naval bases. Cascadia could also become an independent federation. Russia would grab Alaska and possibly Hawaii, where only natives are Hawaiians, everyone else is a "Hawaii resident" (the most nakedly anti-white statement I've ever seen in current politics).

California will not willingly join Mexico, as a California would become Mexico's richest state and be subsidizing a much poorer country. A water treaty with rUSA would be a formality, as desalination tech improves.

Mexico's ruling class doesn't want the Southwest back, they want a North American Union and a Hispanic-majority US. The La Raza/MeCha types won't settle for anything less than a permanent ANC style ruling party and the expulsion of conservative whites to a Russian penal colony. I don't forsee MeCha ever becoming anything more than the David Duke of Latin politics.

That's why we should encourage and promote the Kamala Harisses of the left and do what we can to undercut the Bernie Sanderses of the left (or the Kevin de Leons vs the Diane Feintsteins). The non-white faction of the left is much clumsier and self-sabotaging than the anti-white white/(((white))) faction of the left is. The sooner the latter realize quantity has a quality of its own and that they're out for good, the better.

Sid,

Had a tough time in WWII? Welcome to the club.

Pure gold.

Jared,

The sooner it's done, the more peaceably it can be done. Military assets have value. So do a lot of other resources. Deals will have to be made.

216,

Agree that the irredentism is more a driving spirit of those invaders in Mexico than a serious goal for California. How northern California will respond will be interesting.

Accession of northern Mexico into at least one new State is also necessary to assortatively migrate recent naturalized citizens of Mexican heritage (and to quell cartel anarchy). The same goes for the country of origin of any substantial group of immigrants. If the "leaders" of those countries can't get it together -- or if they are bent on invading the US with boots in the voting booths here -- then we just take territory from them until they disappear.

This reminds me of the French Revolutionary Wars following the French Revolution:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Wars_of_France

"The French Revolutionary Wars were a series of sweeping military conflicts lasting from 1792 until 1802 and resulting from the French Revolution. They pitted the French Republic against Britain, Austria and several other monarchies. They are divided in two periods: the War of the First Coalition (1792–97) and the War of the Second Coalition (1798–1802). Initially confined to Europe, the fighting gradually assumed a global dimension. After a decade of constant warfare and aggressive diplomacy, France had conquered a wide array of territories, from the Italian Peninsula and the Low Countries in Europe to the Louisiana Territory in North America. French success in these conflicts ensured the spread of revolutionary principles over much of Europe.

As early as 1791, the other monarchies of Europe looked with outrage at the revolution and its upheavals; and they considered whether they should intervene, either in support of King Louis XVI, or to prevent the spread of revolution, or to take advantage of the chaos in France. Anticipating an attack, France declared war on Prussia and Austria in the spring of 1792 and they responded with a coordinated invasion that was eventually turned back at the Battle of Valmy in September. This victory emboldened the National Convention to abolish the monarchy.[4] A series of victories by the new French armies abruptly ended with defeat at Neerwinden in the spring of 1793. The French suffered additional defeats in the remainder of the year and these difficult times allowed the Jacobins to rise to power and impose the Reign of Terror to unify the nation."